Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Those Sneaky Abortionists!

There are certain aspects of the abortion issue that tend to creep me out a bit--particularly the concept of a "partial birth" abortion. However, the futility of a PBAban can be seen from this story. The short version: since a medical procedure is just "a course of action intended to achieve a result in the care of patients", you can always avoid the ban by changing the physical acts that make up the procedure in question. Which is what they are now doing in Boston, PA. And in fact these kind of "outs" to any Partial Birth Abortion ban were being pointed out by physicians way back in the mid-1990s, when the issue first took off. So, a decade's worth of work on the part of U.S. Evangelicals for nothing.

Holly, I do realize that. Its also quite rare in the U.S. But I was more interested in this case in the fact that the ban is a ban on a specific series of medical actions, and can therefore simply be circumvented by a slight change in the actions themselves. Anon 3:01 thinks the law can be revisited, but good luck with that.

Furthermore, it isn't like people didn't know the ban could be circumvented in this way ten years ago.

And Suzanne, under the cicurmstances likely to hold in these cases, I do.

I think it is okay to remove the fetus if the woman's life is in danger, without violating the fetus' bodily integrity, e.g. crushing his skull, dismembering him, etc. I believe the way to do this is through induction or a c-section, not by PBA.

BCL, you do realise, don't you, that late term abortions are very rare in Canada and are done in order to save a woman's life,

Not true. Late-term abortions are done on women who've discovered her unborn child has a genetic disease or malformation. I've documented cases done past 30 weeks in Canada. They are perceived as much rarer than they are because they are often coded as "stillbirths" past 20 weeks, not as abortions, therefore they do not appear in the statistics. Among the unborn who are terminated past 20 weeks are those with Down Syndrome and other treatable conditions.

And Suzanne, under the cicurmstances likely to hold in these cases, I do.

But they're done in all kinds of cases. I documented a case of a lady who repented of her PBA-- her daughter had been diagnosed with Cystic Fibrosis.

It's simply not true that they are ONLY done when the mother's life is at stake, and the American ban has a provision for this in any case.

the notion that baby's skulls are being crushed and all the other nastiness is mostly BS. my cousin just had a late-term abortion/stillborn; she was over 6 months, and the baby took quite a while to die on the operating table. very sad. her family is very religious, and her mother is a leading advocate for "physicians for life" or something.

No one is saying that all late-term abortion methods are the same. I do not have any evidence that PBA is done in Canada. It might be, or it may not. Late-term abortion is not something that is well documented in Canada.

The results of D an X vary. Sometimes the hole that is made in the head is small enough that you can't even tell the baby was aborted unless you look very closely. Sometimes the baby's skull is crushed. Sometimes the baby is decapitated. As the ad slogan goes: results may vary. Except for the dead baby part. That's universal with PBA, which is why it's so desirable as an abortion method. Very few babies (if any) survive that method.

Ok, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there should be some restricitons on abortions, which there really aren't in the US because the law isn't about abortions, its about privacy. Here, in a sane country we don't do late term abortions unless its medically necessary for the health/safety of the woman or the foetus has major deofrmaties which would make it dead shortly after birth anyways. It considered unethical and a physician could lose his/her licence to d what is described here.

These reason for late terma abortions are just not acceptable except the major complications with the foetus, which is 2% of late term abortions. That means that 98% of these would be illegal in Canada.

Resons listed for late term abortions:"71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant 6% Woman didn't know timing is important 5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy 11% Other

If the US could come to some sort of reasonable middle ground, which is seemingly impossible for them it would be amatter of medical ethics and regulated by their College of Physicians to ban late term and "partial-birth" abortions.

I'm pro choice but you know what, if you're late term, just wait a few weeks, induce labour and give it up for adopton.

As far as the CF question is concerned that is not a major foetal complication. A major foetal complication is anacephalus (no brain), or no kidny's, no heart ie big missing parts that would result in death shortly after birth.

skdadl, um you must be wrong there, as c-section is the single fastest way to get a foetus out of a women's body. There aint no faster way. PBA can take several days as the cervix has to dilate. Please know what you are talking about. I believe the foetus is injected then the woman's labour is induced and the foetus is still born. I say I believe because I am not sure it is the only way, however, I have heard of this method being used. Again, it's not done very often here and never on viable foetuses.

ok Canuckistan, I'll bite. What you just described would absolutely be illegal in Canada and result in negligent homcide charges against the physician. An abortion where the baby was viable, born alive and took time to die on the table. Holly fuck that is barbaric, terrible unnecesary and very tragic. btw is your cousin sadistic or just a moron?

And those were the abortions due ONLY to genetic issues or malformations. We don't know about the others.

Considering that Quebec has recruited late-term abortionists in recent years, I suspect that more late-term abortions are taking place.

Anon at 7:36--

Late-term abortions are done on Down Syndrome babies. That's not about the health of the mother, that's about the convenience of the mother.

"I'm pro choice but you know what, if you're late term, just wait a few weeks, induce labour and give it up for adopton. "

Exactly. I can say that in a recent report by Quebec physicians, there is a desire to move towards palliative care for babies who are delivered second trimester to terminate the pregnancy. If we could just persuade people that palliative care is an option, I'm sure fewer people would abort. It would be far more comforting to see a baby cared for and under pain management than to know it died of a potassium chloride injection to the heart.

Anon at 7:48

"ok Canuckistan, I'll bite. What you just described would absolutely be illegal in Canada and result in negligent homcide charges against the physician. "

No it won't. Check out what happened to the famous case of the baby aborted at 35 weeks at Foothills Hospital in Calgary in 1999. The baby survived. The mom asked for help, the doctors wouldn't give the baby any. The mom rocked the baby for 12 hours. No charges were laid. Not unusual.

"An abortion where the baby was viable, born alive and took time to die on the table. Holly fuck that is barbaric, terrible unnecesary and very tragic. "

Happens all the time. Ten per cent of babies aborted by induction survive. They're left in a corner to die.

"btw is your cousin sadistic or just a moron? "

Women who have these late-term abortions often don't know what they're getting into. They're so under shock about the diagnosis. People think the worst about chromosomal anamolies. The doctors often make them sound worse than they really are.

"...We have heard an earful about late term abortion over the last decade or two, but what’s been missing from that pro-life soliloquy is the data showing that nearly 50% of women presenting for an abortion late in pregnancy cite pro-life restrictions as the cause. In Mississippi, for example, in just a year after passage of a favorite pro-life restriction, mandating a waiting period before a woman can receive and abortion, researchers discovered the second trimester abortion rate statewide had increased by a whopping 53 percent. The law didn’t convince women not to have an abortion, it just prevented them from having one early. If the gestational age at which an abortion happens matters, as efforts to ban late term procedures suggest, then pro-life policies guarantee the worst outcomes. In 2003, after Texas law mandated teens have parental permission, researchers discovered a spike in the number of second trimester procedures obtained by 18-year-olds. It turned out that many opted to wait to have the abortion until they could do it privately. The pro-choice movement has worked to make abortion available as early as possible in a pregnancy — now as early as two weeks gestation. The legalization of abortion alone, allowing many women for the first time to get care locally, reduced the second trimester abortion rate by half..."

If you think I won't get anywhere, then I suppose you won't stop me, right?

Oh, you'll be stopped. Your agenda is clearly not pro-life but anti-eros, anti-woman, fundamentally illiberal and anti-democratic, and based on your fanatical religious beliefs and delusions which are incompatible with modernity. If it were "pro-life" you wouldn't be associating yourself with the hate-spewing bigots and miseries who deny life in all its many complex forms.

You're not fooling anyone but yourself and your little cohort of fanatics.

We're not getting anywhere. Why will we be stopped? We're not convincing anyone, except ourselves. So what exactly are you stopping?

"anti-woman,"

Feminists do not define what "woman" is Ti-guy, and as a woman, I do not allow feminists to speak for me. I am not a concept. I am not an ideology. So please do not use my gender to name an ideology.

"fundamentally illiberal "

Liberalism has been characterized by acknowledging the humanity of all human beings. Standing up for fetal rights is really taking liberalism to its logical conclusions: acknowledging a class of oppressed human beings as humans and fighting for their equal rights. If that's not liberal, I don't know what is.

"anti-democratic,"

I've promoted equal rights for unborn children using democratic means and persuasion. I advocate social change using the political process. Promoting the rights of human beings is very democratic.

"If it were "pro-life" you wouldn't be associating yourself with the hate-spewing bigots and miseries who deny life in all its many complex forms."

My association with anyone does not say anything about my beliefs. The issue here is the right to life. No one denies the right to life. Unborn children do not have any kind of legal recognition whatsoever. I don't necessarily reject people because of bigotry. Lots of people are bigoted against my ethnic origin, my religion and (when pregnant) my unborn baby. Both on the right and the left. My solution is to debate on those issues I disagree with, and work with them on issues that I do agree with them, regardless of their own bigotries. That is no different than what most politicians do.

"Oh, you'll be stopped. Your agenda is clearly not pro-life but anti-eros, anti-woman, fundamentally illiberal and anti-democratic, and based on your fanatical religious beliefs and delusions which are incompatible with modernity."

Who would do the stopping ti-guy, you? Unless we turn into a police state, the change, if it comes, will come from the people and democratically.

Legal abortion is a modern convenience but should not in itself be confused with modernity. The ethical questions this procedure raises are ancient and still unresolved.

We're not getting anywhere. Why will we be stopped? We're not convincing anyone, except ourselves. So what exactly are you stopping?

You're not getting anywhere because you're being stopped by people who can make better and more rational arguments than you. Why do you think only a lunatic fringe party is interested in you?

You'll be stopped more forcefully if you continue to subvert the democratic process (as you do with your little blog bursts and cheating with online polls).

Feminists do not define what "woman" is Ti-guy, and as a woman, I do not allow feminists to speak for me. I am not a concept. I am not an ideology. So please do not use my gender to name an ideology.

I didn't say anything about feminists. I think you're anti-woman because you deny a woman's right to self-actualisation. On a broader level, you're anti-person.

I've promoted equal rights for unborn children using democratic means and persuasion. I advocate social change using the political process. Promoting the rights of human beings is very democratic.

The end result of your dominionist fantasy is profoundly anti-democratic. But note above your attempts to subvert the democratic processs. I could go on...your dishonesty, your recourse to pseudo-science...those are anti-democratic as well.

My association with anyone does not say anything about my beliefs.

I suspect they do. Since you're so dishonest, you'll never admit that. In any case, they certainly call into question your judgment.

The issue here is the right to life. No one denies the right to life. Unborn children do not have any kind of legal recognition whatsoever. I don't necessarily reject people because of bigotry. Lots of people are bigoted against my ethnic origin, my religion and (when pregnant) my unborn baby. Both on the right and the left. My solution is to debate on those issues I disagree with, and work with them on issues that I do agree with them, regardless of their own bigotries. That is no different than what most politicians do.

Who would do the stopping ti-guy, you? Unless we turn into a police state, the change, if it comes, will come from the people and democratically.

Let's hope so, eh? It is however the obligation of the democrat to protect liberal democracy in a manner commensurate with threat posed by those who seek to limit or destroy it.

So, the degree of push back will be determined by the tactics used by the illiberal anti-democratic and always potentially violent authoritarians. That'll be inevitable if those people can't resign themselves to the reality of a liberal democracy.

It is however the obligation of the democrat to protect liberal democracy in a manner commensurate with threat posed by those who seek to limit or destroy it.

The democrat constitutes many diverse opinions often in opposition to other democrats. Opinions change, as do democracies. If the will of the people demands it, changes to the law will happen.

So, the degree of push back will be determined by the tactics used by the illiberal anti-democratic and always potentially violent authoritarians. That'll be inevitable if those people can't resign themselves to the reality of a liberal democracy.

The push, if it comes, will come from the people, democratically and legally. What method will you use to "push back" against the will of the people?

The push, if it comes, will come from the people, democratically and legally.

You (and a few others) are making the assumption that all changes arrived at through majority rule are legitimate and democratic. That's not the point I'm arguing and that's not a complete understanding of democracy, which goes beyond majority rule. And if you don't agree with that, well too bad. We all know that conditions arising from majority consensus are not always legitimate (slavery, minority persecution, etc.)

The issue with social conservatives is that they seek to limit the freedom of action of other people based on dubious and largely unprovable notions of morality or "correctness." This is intolerable and needs to be challenged vigorously to protect everyone's freedom of action, including those of people like Suzanne, who, as far as I can tell, is not being subject to any restrictions on what she is allowed to do. No one's forcing her to have abortions; no one's passing judgment on what's she's up to in her bedroom, no one's forcing her to watch the awful television with which she is very familiar but cannot abide; no one's asking much of her at all (although she'll probably whine that all the dirty looks she got in high school...which I imagine arose out of her being an intolerant and tedious prig...constitutes some sort of social imposition).

"What crack have you been smoking" does not equate to vicious authoritarianism. You really do lack logic don't you?

This is a human rights issue, some concentrate entirely on the woman, others the unborn, and others concentrate on both. There is no reason to lash out insults at any group. You could just as well accuse the pro-choicers of forcing their morality on the unborn. Give it a rest, you sound like you think you're so perfect and self-righteous.

Did I go over to your blog and call you a crack-smoker? Do unto others, socon.

You could just as well accuse the pro-choicers of forcing their morality on the unborn.

Well, you could...if you were retarded, that is. This always comes down to the issue of the personhood of the unborn, which is insoluble (and run out of breath to refute that, I really don't care. It's insoluble). In any case, if we're going to argue human rights, there are those who believe you're going to have to argue responsibilities as well, and I wonder just how much human responsibility we can expect from the unborn.

The only reason I argue abortion more than I used to (I'm a man, I've always practiced birth control and choice is the only moral position to take...) is that you socons have allied yourselves with a bunch of vicious, racist, authoritarian hate-mongers, liars and moral miscreants and that the pro-life cause has been degraded to something that is quite clearly anti-life.

"What crack have you been smoking" is a figure of speech. It implies that if you did smoke crack, you must have smoked some bad crack that had some bad affects, resulting in an illogical thought conclusion. I'm sorry that I had to explain that to you, but I guess it's not a common saying where you're from.

Well, you could...if you were retarded,

There you go again, throwing insults around, you always really enjoy attacking the debater rather than the argument. Even with all of Suzanne's posts, you didn't really bother replying to what she said, to the arguments she made, you ignored them, and skipped to attacking her directly. So now, I'm not going to attack you, but I will attack your choice of rhetoric and the logic or lack-there-of that you use in coming to a conclusion.

This always comes down to the issue of the personhood of the unborn, which is insoluble (and run out of breath to refute that, I really don't care. It's insoluble).

Personhood in reality is only a legal description, and in debating abortion, we are debating the laws regarding this. We debate whether or not the unborn should be given the legal right of personhood. That really is what it all hinges on, that's what makes it a human rights issue. If pro-lifers didn't believe that the unborn, in some stage of development or another should be granted the right to personhood, then all of this would be a non-issue. And you really don't care? That's a statement of opinion, another sharing a different opinion does not make them retarded, but one not willing to hear other's opinions and better understand them does make them ignorant.

In any case, if we're going to argue human rights, there are those who believe you're going to have to argue responsibilities as well, and I wonder just how much human responsibility we can expect from the unborn.

Rights to not necessarily come hand in hand with responsibilities. Just take a look at a newborn child, it holds not responsibilities, it cannot be diciplined, though it does have basic human rights.

is that you socons have allied yourselves with a bunch of vicious, racist, authoritarian hate-mongers, liars and moral miscreants and that the pro-life cause has been degraded to something that is quite clearly anti-life.

I see no evidence of that. In any group, you will find some who stand out and give others a bad name. Just look at the pro-choicers who are willing to assault pro-lifers and destroy their property on Canadian and American unversity campuses. I only give that as an example because you singled this out as something that exists in the pro-life community. But vicious, racist, authoritarian hate-mongerers, liars and moral miscreants? How about one of the biggest lies of all when Bernard Nathanson of NARAL fabricated numbers used to sway Roe vs. Wade that don't match CDC statistics on total American deaths?

Well, I thank you this time for putting up a couple of arguments rather than just throwing insults.

Hey Vek? You can fuck yourself with your scolding about insults. You don't have to talk to me. You don't even have to read this blog.

If pro-lifers didn't believe that the unborn, in some stage of development or another should be granted the right to personhood, then all of this would be a non-issue.

Yeah, we know that already. But from a legal perspective (which increasingly can't justify limitations or distinctions based on matters of pure faith), it's immaterial. This is something you people won't accept, and you're keen to re-hash that debate over and over and over and over and over...

Rights to not necessarily come hand in hand with responsibilities.

They normally do. We assign rights to entities which are capable (as far as we can tell) of moral agency. This is why, for example, that we do not assign rights to animals, although we set legal restrictions regarding their treatment for the purpose of acting humanely.

Just take a look at a newborn child, it holds not responsibilities, it cannot be diciplined, though it does have basic human rights.

Up to a certain age, but that doesn't last long. In any case, the legal distinction we make here is when the fetus is no longer within the woman's body, at which point, it's clearer that there are at least two physically separate entities. That's simply the best we can do. Yes, yes...I know your God tells you something different...

I see no evidence that [socons are allied with vicious, racist, authoritarian hate-mongers, liars and moral miscreants]

...then you're unconscious. I can't help you with that. Maybe you need to get out more.

The rest of your comment is pro-life cultist propaganda. I can't be bothered.

"ok Canuckistan, I'll bite. What you just described would absolutely be illegal in Canada and result in negligent homcide charges against the physician. An abortion where the baby was viable, born alive and took time to die on the table. Holly fuck that is barbaric, terrible unnecesary and very tragic. btw is your cousin sadistic or just a moron?"

are you retarded or just irretrievably stupid? and the award for being able to discern the patently obvious goes to: ti-guy. congratulations on not being retarded ;-)!

"Sorry Canuckistan forgot to mention I'm pro choice, but that has nothing to do with what you described."

sorry for not mentioning something irrelevant??? as opposed to being sorry for maliciously maligning my family??? yeah, well, i'm sorry too...sorry your mother didn't have an abortion. she coulda saved society from another perturbed anti-social nutbar.

democracy isn't just who wins elections, goobers, it is also inexorably tied to the rule of law; which, in our constitutional democracy, is protected by an impartial judiciary from authoritarian goombas who attempt to subvert liberal democracies by imposing their faith-based beliefs on the rest of society.

you don't like abortions, then don't have one. while you're at it, if you could also refrain from trying to take away the rights of other individuals in our society, that would be great. thanks abunch.

Not only do I wish they'd continue to not have abortions, I kind of wish they'd stop breeding altogether. You just know their fucked-up children are going to be a burden on society in the future, one way or another...likely when little Hezekiah, in an effort to sublimate his unorthodox sexual urges, develops an alcohol addiction at age 16...

This is something you people won't accept, and you're keen to re-hash that debate over and over and over and over and over...

That is correct. In a democracy, one never need accept laws one believes to be wrong. One must respect the law while at the same time possibly disagreeing with a particular law.

Even after 40 years, opinion about abortion remains strong and divided. If you haven't gotten a large portion of the Canadian population to "accept" your viewpoint on abortion after all these years ti-guy, I doubt you ever will.

Times change, circumstances change and public attitudes can change. But the ethical issues surrounding abortion will not go away.

Yeah, that's all really interesting and everything, but I was referring to the issue of personhood, which is insoluble and which none of you can except.

And I question this assertion: "Even after 40 years, opinion about abortion remains strong and divided. If you haven't gotten a large portion of the Canadian population to "accept" your viewpoint on abortion after all these years ti-guy, I doubt you ever will."

My position on abortion is "no abortion law, choice and that abortion is a matter between a woman, her conscience and her health-care provider." That is a situation that has obtained for quite some time now.

My position on abortion is "no abortion law, choice and that abortion is a matter between a woman, her conscience and her health-care provider." That is a situation that has obtained for quite some time now.

And your position perfectly mirrors the legal state on abortion in Canada too.

That the law has been that way for "quite some time now" does not signify a whole lot. Slavery existed for "quite some time" too.

"Your position" will not necessarily be the Canadian position in the future.

Funny you mention "personhood"; it is that exact concept which many Canadians would say you are denying.

"Your position" will not necessarily be the Canadian position in the future."

Oh yes it will. You see, your ilk has run out of arguments. You lost, long ago. Get used to it and give up. Direct your energies to:

1. Making children and young adults understand the nature of serious sexual relationships;2. The variety of ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy, including birth control and abstinence;3. The wonder of procreation and birth, which is available to all;4. Socialised care for mothers, children and families;5. God's blessing on all loving and committed pair bonds, including those of same sex;6. God's gift of eros;7. The roasting in Hell of all anti-Christian religious conservative liars and hypocrites, as Jesus Himself taught.

The majority of Canadians support some restriction on abortion, the majority of Canadians support some rights for the unborn at some point in gestation. Currently, there is no recognition whatsoever. People who actually care about human rights care, that's who.

I'm sorry, but until you guys disassociate yourselves from that collection of vicious racists, bigots and assorted miseries, you have nothing to say to me.

You're starting to sound like a broken record. You have provided no proof to back up what you have said except for your own observations that lack examples. You seem to be pushing some stereotype that you would only find on a far-left website such as rabble.ca that doesn't allow free-speech to argue against any opinion put forward.

Well don't you like to jump to conclusions. I've never been a member of babble, but I've seen the transcripts of others who have been kicked off. I've seen what they said and what the moderator said about what they said, and it's ridiculous.

Who will stop you from removing women's right to choose? I right that many fought so hard for? All of us who believe in the right to choose. It was done once, it can be done again.

The "take responsibility" argument holds no weight. A woman gets pregnant, decides, for reasons she comes to on her own, that she will have an abortion. She chooses. That"s taking responsibility because she isn't pushing the decision off on someone else. She goes to the clinic and has the abortion. Again, she takes responsibility by acting independently. Womn are not weak, mindless children who need others to protect them from choice. When pro-lifers talk about how removing choice is good for the woman as well as the foetus, that's garbage. Soe women are stronger than others, but that's their right to meet life as it comes at them. They don't need, and should not have reproductive choices legislated for them.

And a person can be pro-choice and pro-life. I know quite a few people who are at the opposite end of the spectrum - pro-life (as in the abortion issue) and believe in the death penalty, and/or sending troops to die for vague causes poorly explained by their government.

I right that many fought so hard for? All of us who believe in the right to choose. It was done once, it can be done again.

I believe in the right to choose as well, as long as that right doesn't interfere with or take the life of another human being.

That"s taking responsibility because she isn't pushing the decision off on someone else. She goes to the clinic and has the abortion. Again, she takes responsibility by acting independently.

Taking responsibility means facing the music, when you create a life, you have to deal with it, not kill it and sweep it under the carpet, sweeping any "issue" in your life under the carpet is not taking responsibility.

When pro-lifers talk about how removing choice is good for the woman as well as the foetus, that's garbage

Garbage eh? Saving lives is garbage? How humanitarian of you.

They don't need, and should not have reproductive choices legislated for them.

Legislation is created to protect, not interfere with the liberty of others. The only reason your liberty of choice will be interfered with is if it is interfering with another's liberty. In this case, that's the liberty to life.

And a person can be pro-choice and pro-life.

Pro-life means you don't anyone should be taking away human life. Pro-choice means you believe people should choose whether or not they should kill another. If you're pro-choice, you're not pro-life. There is no way you can believe that abortions should be allowed and still be pro-life. The word choice is just rhetoric, it's all really about abortion.

pro-life (as in the abortion issue) and believe in the death penalty...

Personally, I don't believe in the death penalty, but some do. I'd rather see them rot and suffer in prison for the rest of their lives. But some who do believe in the death penalty, and are also against abortion would argue that the unborn are innocent human lives, while a convicted murderer is a monster and not really a person, though I disagree.

pro-life (as in the abortion issue) and believe in ... sending troops to die for vague causes poorly explained by their government

Well, this one touches me personally since I know troops that have gone to Afghanistan. Every one of them was already in the armed forces, and also signed up to go to Afghanistan. You make it sound like civilians were conscripted to go and ordered by the government. The only difference between this mission and a peacekeeping mission is that if this one was a peacekeeping mission, our troops would have run away and let the Afghan people be raped, murdered, and enslaved years ago.

You liberals just keep on aborting your future all you want; hopefully one day liberalism will only be studied in abnormal psychology textbooks as a deviant mental illness which eventually self-destructed.